An electronic gaming device (EGD), such as a poker machine, provides its player with the opportunity to win cash or other prizes. To entice more persons to play EGDs and/or to render them more exciting, it is known to link EGDs electronically in a network, with each EGD contributing a proportion of its turnover to a pooled jackpot. The EGDs in a network may be located on one site, or spread over several remote sites. Since a larger number of EGDs contribute to the jackpot, the jackpot can have a higher value and/or be won more often than single machine jackpots.
In a typical progressive linked jackpot system, one or more EGDs contribute a percentage of turnover to a pool (either on a local or external network). Each time an EGD is played, it tests for a particular winning combination. If that combination is achieved, the EGD is awarded the pool. A key aspect of this arrangement is that each game played has the same probability of a jackpot win.
This arrangement has traditionally been used by casinos but its popularity is diminishing due to the introduction of EGDs featuring multiple line and multiple credits per line wagering options. If a player elects to play multiple credits per line, the win probability would no longer be proportional to the wager. That is, the win probability would be the same regardless of the number of credits wagered on the line. This is considered a major disincentive to wagering multiple credits per line. This arrangement also requires the EGD to provide special software which tests for the winning combination. Further, it is difficult to link EGDs of differing base denominations to the same progressive jackpot pool.
Another type of jackpot system is described in Australian patent no. 655801. In this type of jackpot system, one or more EGDs are typically connected to an external Random Jackpot Controller (RJC) via a data network. As each game is played, the RJC adds a proportion of each wager to the external pool. The RJC initially seeds the pool with a starting value. The RJC then selects a random number between the starting value and a predetermined maximum value. As each EGD is played, each EGD informs the RJC of the credits bet and a proportion of the wager is added to the pool. The value of the pool is then compared with the selected random number. If there is a match, the RJC awards the current pool value to that EGD. This arrangement is usually configured to provide relatively small but frequent awards, and has the inherent characteristic that the probability of a win on each EGD increases as the pool increases toward the maximum limit.
However, since the win probability increases as the pool increases towards its predetermined maximum limit, a player playing just after the pool is reset has a lower jackpot win probability than a player playing at a later time when the pool is greater, even though both players may be wagering the same amount. For this reason, this arrangement is generally considered unfair and deterministic. The deterministic nature of this jackpot system has led some gaming authorities to prohibit the inclusion of the pool contributions into the “Return to Player Percentage” (RTP) for taxation calculation purposes, which diminishes the financial appeal of this jackpot system to gaming machine operators.
Yet another type of jackpot system is described in international patent application no. PCT/AU98/00525. In that jackpot arrangement, one or more EGDs are typically connected to an External Feature Game Controller (EFGC) via a communications network. Each EGD informs the EFGC of credits bet and a proportion of the credits bet is added to the external jackpot pool. This pool is typically seeded with a starting value.
As each game is played (and only when a game is played), the EGD tests for the occurrence of a random “win” event whose probability is a function of the credits bet on that particular game. If the EGD detects the random event, the EFGC is informed. The EGD then typically enters a feature game where the winning amount is determined. The EFGC is informed of the win and in some cases will transmit the value of the win to the EGD's credit meter. In other cases, the EGD will be locked up until the jackpot is paid manually by an attendant. The greater the wager per game the greater is the probability of a win on that game.
A disadvantage of this arrangement is that it is not easily applied to an existing EGD installation. Each EGD must be fitted with special software with a means of determining and detecting the random event per game. Alternatively, a communications-based Central Feature Game Controller (CFGC) may theoretically be employed which has a means of determining and testing for the random event per game on behalf of each EGD, based on the credits bet on each game.
Many jurisdictions have mandated the use of specialised communications networks designed to collect EGD data and to provide a means of external control over the EGDs. Some operators of these networks have implemented their own jackpot awarding systems utilising these networks. These networks however, cannot guarantee that each EGD's data will be collected in synchronisation with each EGD's game cycle. Further, many of these communications networks do not even support the collection of “credits bet” data from EGDs. In some cases there may be over 6 games played between data collections. If a CFGC utilised these networks for the collection of the credits bet information for the purpose of centrally determining the random event based on credits bet on each game, there would be a real likelihood that many played games would be missed due to the data collection latency of the communications systems. This would result in those games still contributing to the jackpot pool but with no chance of winning the prize. This makes it impractical to use credits bet per game as a basis for the determination of the random event on a game-by-game basis in a CFGC acting on behalf of each EGD.
A further problem with this jackpot arrangement is that once an EGD enters its feature game for the purpose of determining the actual prize, one of the available pools is always going to be awarded regardless of the feature game outcome. There is no technical barrier to a smart player deferring the playing of the feature game to allow the jackpot pool to increase in value. The longer the player waits, the greater the potential pool increase and the greater the prize. In an extreme example, the player could wait until the feature game is triggered on another contributing EGD, then immediately play the feature game and effectively steal the other player's prize.
It is an object of this invention to provide an improved prize awarding system for a network of EGDs, which overcomes or ameliorates the above described disadvantages or which at least provides a useful alternative.